Wheel weights vs pure lead

[bob in the woods]

I didn't want to highjack the Brown Bess thread in the Building Forum, so moved over here.
I use wheel weights  from a .735 mold in my Chambers New England fowler , when target shooting, etc.
Switch to pure lead when hunting. Since I've never recovered a ball from a deer, or even a bear [ I used a .62 on that] I'm wondering if the wheel weights would work just as well. I want to try the fowler on a moose. Load is 140 gr FFg, patched .735 ball . 

[northwoodsdave]

Bob

My understanding of the "soft lead" argument is that it's superior in rifled barrels.  Being as how you have a smoothy, that is not a concern.  As you point out, you already shoot the harder lead for targets.

Most modern bullets are made of much harder lead alloys anyway, since pure lead is too soft and tends to deform before impact, given modern pressures and energy. 

My opinion is that wheel weight lead would be fine for hunting in a smooth-bore.  I'm sure you'll get other opinions, which I will be interested in seeing as well!

Dave

[hookie13]

I mix them...3 of wheel weights to 1 of soft lead...it works well
 I think it is Lyman that puts a pamphlet in with their molds that give the ratios etc.
Hookie

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

A .735" wheel weight ball makes a better hunting projectile than one of pure lead.  The harder ball will smash big bones better.  But in the end, the moose won't be able to tell the difference. 
Use pure lead in a rifle...hard balls are harder to load.  They don't swage to the patch and rifling as easily as pure lead does. 

[Daryl]

Note Taylor said the moose won't tell the difference - he is correct.  The big cow he shot with the Bess, ended up with the ball underneath the hide on the 'off' side, expanded to about 1 1/8" in diameter.  I still have that recovered ball, btw.  A WW ball would most likely have ended up at the same location but non-expanded.

 A friend has a .75 Sporting Rifle that Taylor built, and found when he reduced his charge to 120gr., he was able to keep a ball inside a moose. He-too used a .735" ball, but always WW metal.  At 140 to 200gr., all he got were exits, which I prefer. He preferred to show the recovered balls at work, thus he reduced his charge.  With a ball that size, about any powder charge will work, ie: kill moose, but there was a noticable difference on the animals hit, between a 120gr. charge and a 140gr. or more charge.  It seemed, when the ball exits, there appears to be more 'nerve' shock to the animal, compared to one that stays inside.

In a large bored gun, one needs only a pure lead ball for most North American game. If I was going after Alaskan Brown bears with my 14 bore, I'd be loading 15 bore WW balls for increased penetration, rather than the 14 1/2 bore pure lead ball. For the unglulates, a pure lead ball would suffice, but a WW ball will give better results on heavy bones. The upper leg bone of a large moose will run 2 1/2" to 3" in diameter. For that, a WW ball is best.  Even a 1st year bull calf has a 2" diameter bone in it's leg - tough on balls.

When shooting WW in a rifle, one generally has to reduce diamter .010" to .015" under actual bore diameter (calibre) and use a corresponding slightly heavier patch.  When shooting WW in a smoothbore, .020" to .030" smaller than the bore is fine, allowing for a .018" to .025" patch.

If wanting to mix alloys, fine.  Pure lead, as in 99% pure, will run about Brinel 5, while good Canadian WW metal is around 12 to 13(no glue-strip WW which are pure).  Mixing alloys will allow easier loading than straight WW, but give a slightly harder ball than pure lead, thus inceased penetration.

In the big gun, I usually shoot pure lead (if I have it) for target, and WW for hunting.  In the smoothbores, WW for target or hutning works just fine and is cheaper than pure lead, saving the pure for calibres that don't like it, like most all rifles under about .58 and most rifles with deeper than .012" rifling.

imho, of course.

[Dphariss]

Rifles with narrow lands will load WW alloy pretty easy though it will require a thinner patch.
I can shoot WW with a .011-.012 patch or pure lead with a .018 patch from the 16 bore.
WW with the thick patch will not go in.
I may cast some 490s for the 50 cal and see how they load in the GM barrels.
Dan

[Daryl]

I have a .433" Lee DC mould and cast some balls of WW for the .45. I suspect they'll be just fine with a heavy .025" patch, indeed, they, being so small, will demand a heavy patch to even come close to filling the .010" rifling in it's GM barrel. I currently use a .445" ball with the same patch, so expect the smaller WW ball to load as easily.

[Osprey]

Is there any difference in older wheel weight composition?  I've got buckets of 'em here from when my Grandpop had an Esso station 20 years ago, many were already melted and converted to large decoy anchors, got loads of them, too.  Wondered if at some point in time they were maybe all lead?

[Daryl]

Don't think they've changed standard wheel weights.  I've been shooting Canadian WW in my magnum handguns and modern rifles since 1973, and hardening and tempering them since about 1977. At that time, as today, a .45 to .50 cal. bullet for the Sharps and Rolling blocks, cast of straight WW will take up to about 2,100fps with the slower smokeless powders, with a Brinel of around 12 to 13.  I've seen quotes on hardness as low as Brinel 9 for WW, but that melt must have included the stick-on weights, which are very close to pure.  It was a quote from one of the guys from the Cast Bullet Association, a very worthwhile 'club'. I've been a member for 2 years now.  Many of you will recognize "Ed Harris" (Ed's Red)  who writes many of the articles in the Fouling Shot, the bi-monthly magazine.  A man of vast cast bullet experience.

Do be careful, there are clamp-on weights that are now cast from Zinc.  Zinc will destroy the entrie 10 or 20 pounds of metal in your pot, and contaminate the pot for furture casting as well. Zinc weights are a plague.

[northmn]

WW in the US was never really a precise standard, such that you could get a variation of Brinnel hardness. Most would make a very large batch of WW alloy and get consistency from that.  There was a time in the 70's or 80's when everyone really chintzed on antimony as the prices soared.   I use birdshot for cast bullets with good results as it includes arsenic and can be tempered.  A good tempered bullet with a annealed nose can be driven at 2000 fps.  WW can be tempered but I cannot see this as an advantage in a large bore ML unless a smoothbore in which you would want absolutely no expansion as they can be made harder than Linotype.  Also WW will air harden over time and would work best fairly fresh cast (within a couple of months?)  Mostly WW should give good "practical" accuracy for rifles.  As to expansion, by cutting the WW with lead you could get less drastic expansion up close and still have easier loading although it takes very little additions to make lead harder. 

DP

[Dphariss]

It is my understanding that zinc has become more common as a WW recently so look at any newly acquired WWs carefully.

Dan

[Brian]

So how does one tell the difference between the old wheel weights and the ones with zinc?  Are they marked?  Different color?  What?   

[hammerhead]

i use only pure lead.

[ottawa]

the zinc WW have a Z on them is what I've been told so sorting is a must i get mine from a locale garage when i take my car in for work then are glad to give me them saves them on hazzmat to dispose of them have a couple hun pounds at least for free so sorting is not that big a deal

[Daryl]

Visiting a tire shop late on Friday is usually the best time to get a bucket of 150 pounds of WW, btw.  A 1/2 pack of beer (12) is usually a "Good trade", as many of the people who work in these shops sit around having a beer after work on Friday.  A '24' box of beer will have them saving the weights for you alone.

[rick landes]

WW are about 2 x as hard as 99% Pb. These are too IMHO for a good rifle loads. My loads tend to be quite tight to get the patching to mark the ball and give a good seal.

I also believe the harder WW balls will increase pressures in order to move. I cannot tell that that is indeed true, just a gut level opinion. I am thinking as harder rifle bullets (modern) tend to be loaded to less powder

I use +99% lead for muzzleloading and save the WW for handgun casting.

The square stick on WW are about 90% lead. I have cast some into ingots, but am not sure if I will use for FL fodder.

[sleddman]

Just seems to me it doesn't matter as much as we all make it out to be.  With a patch and ball I dont think the hardness or soft lead matters. I use wheel weights and put a nice eight on the ground. The 50 ball went right through a shoulder and stuck in the hide on the other side. Flattened out to about a nickle.  Keep it simple and fun.   Thanks  Sleddman

[TPH]

The big thing is consistency. If you are going to use wheel weights for "plinking" and target shooting use them for hunting as well, the weight difference will give you problems with accuracy.

[Dphariss]

The big thing is consistency. If you are going to use wheel weights for "plinking" and target shooting use them for hunting as well, the weight difference will give you problems with accuracy.

Near as I can tell the WW balls shoot to the same point of impact as the pure lead in my 16 bore rifle.
I shoot them interchangably but the WW require a thinner patch.

Dan

[hookie13]

Absolutely. you can't argue with that. Stick with whats working for you!!
Hookie

[Maven]

Several months ago a friend of my suggested trying RB's cast of WW's, which I did.  Yes, there is a difference in weight (slightly lighter) and diameter (slightly larger) when WW's are used instead of Pb, but thus far, I've found no meaningful difference in accuracy in two of my rifles.  Moreover, the slightly larger diameter when using WW's may prove useful if you have a mold that casts a bit small.  Then too, you can use a thinner patch if starting the WW ball becomes problematic or too difficult for field use.  Lastly, if you have more WW's than Pb in your cache, you can use them to cast RB's for practice and even target shooting.

[Roger Fisher]

I'll stick with what works in my rifles.  WW tears patches on loading.  Did I say I load tight? 

WW in smoothies okay (if I run out of the soft stuff)

[northmn]

One trick that I do not know if anyone has tried is using WW in small bores for small game.  I think I may look into it as even small bores like the 32 can really blow a small game animal, rabbit or squirrel.  Harder ball might make a difference.  At small game ranges the accuracy may not matter.

DP 

[Daryl]

Small ball and high velocity requries small game to be shot in the head, otherwise a great amount of damage results.  In a .32, .36 or even .40, I don't think ball material will make any difference.  Reducing the load may or may not be useful as accuracy beyond 25 yards can suffer. If all shots are within this range, reducing your velocity to low vel. .22 rimfire levels will be the reducer of damage.

I used to think a .36 was a small bore, however on snowshoe hare heads, the .350" ball removed them more cleanly than did a .50 or .54, however on body shots, the larger bores created more damage.  On bunny heads, the larger bores usually left something attached, however the .36 didn't leave anything above the neck. 

[northmn]

32 won't leave much either.  It pretty well shreds where it hits.  I actually did less damage with a 40 loaded lighter.  In many situations shooting much beyond 25 yards may not be common.  In the woods a 30-40 yard shot looks pretty long.  I ahve shot a lot of small game closer to 25 feet than 25 yards.  Whether one could get less damage with WW would require a little experimenting.  I think it might work on larger caliber, reduced loads.  A 32 wants to move out in excess of 1600 to be accurate. 

DP